September 11th: Real or Fraud?

[gristle]

Not to throw water on anything here, but don't you consider a conspiracy accusation regarding 9/11 to be extremely different from global warming?


The big problem with global warming is that a non-scientist like Al Gore spent years going around claiming that "the science is settled" when in fact it isn't on a great many details. It appears to be clear that there has been some warming since the mid-nineteenth century, but prior to that it was the "Little Ice Age" period. Before the Little Ice Age it was just as warm as it is now - if not even warmer. And regarding the opinions of scientists, has there in fact been a survey of every scientist? Do they all have the requisite training to understand the issue in order to make a "scientific" assessment on the topic, or are they being caught up in the associated frenzy that so often surrounds this issue?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Getting into a different issue, but that's a total falsification of facts. Basically 99.9% of all scientists with a scientific opinion on the matter agree that the Earth is getting far warmer than what could be normally expected. A vast majority still hold the opinion that it's humans and industrialization that has caused this sudden increase in global temperatures. The people that say "the matter isn't settled" are basically either fringe/pseudo-scientists, or anti-global warming propaganda from oil companies and such.
The media may just interview two scientists, one who credits anthropogenic global warming, and one who doesn't, and it seems like a pretty tight argument. But in reality, out of 1000 scientists, there may be 3 who take the latter side, while the other 900+ would be with the former.

The only reason that times before the little ice age were warmer than normal were because that was the medieval warming period. But even that warming period, lasting over 300 years, saw nowhere near as much global warming as we see now after just 50 years or so of real human interference; global temperatures at it's absolute height were in fact almost 0.2 degrees lower than the average at the beginning of large scale industrialization, between 1960 and 1990. And the warming trend is continuing to go even higher than that, with current global temperatures far higher than during the medieval warming period, which even then was a large scale global temperature anomaly.

 

[gristle]

Getting into a different issue, but that's a total falsification of facts.

What is?

Basically 99.9% of all scientists with a scientific opinion on the matter agree that the Earth is getting far warmer than what could be normally expected.

Since you are holding to that number, could I ask for a source?

From what I recall of the geology and geography courses I took in university a while back, there was a considerable range of variation in global temperature over the last 10,000 years. The warmest period was around six to seven thousand years ago years ago (Holocene Climate Maximum) around the start of the Holocene period. The Medieval warm period of around a thousand years ago is considered by many paleoclimatologists to have been as warm - if not warmer - than today.

All that being said, this does not automatically "falsify" the hypothesis of a human contribution to an average increase in global atmospheric temperature as you contend. What it does indicate is that there is considerable variation in average global temperature over time (there is no "normal"), and that there must be a better effort in distinguishing the results of human actions from any and all other natural causes for temperature variation.

The people that say "the matter isn't settled" are basically either fringe/pseudo-scientists

That is your opinion. For example, would you call Freeman Dyson a "pseudoscientist?" I think not.

The only reason that times before the little ice age were warmer than normal were because that was the medieval warming period.

Sorry, but your sentence doesn't make any sense. The point is that the era in question - the Medieval Warm Period - is noted for the warmer climate around that period in time, particularly in the northern hemisphere.

But even that warming period, lasting over 300 years, saw nowhere near as much global warming as we see now after just 50 years or so of real human interference; global temperatures at it's absolute height were in fact almost 0.2 degrees lower than the average at the beginning of large scale industrialization, between 1960 and 1990.

Check your source, the depths of the Little Ice Age was within the last 300 years so there has not been a constant warming. Also, the 1930's were quite warm - warmer than the 1950's to the 1970's. You can find articles from that time where some scientists were worrying about a return to an ice age during that time period. The Second World War and the immediate post-war industrial era were periods of time where CO2 output increased significantly, but the averaged global temperature cooled slightly. Only in the late 1970's/early 1980's did that change.

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about 9/11, no?

 

[Second_in_pie]

Since you are holding to that number, could I ask for a source?

Science textbook?

That is your opinion. For example, would you call Freeman Dyson a "pseudoscientist?" I think not.

That's why I said basically. There are some who have merit, but not many.

Sorry, but your sentence doesn't make any sense. The point is that the era in question - the Medieval Warm Period - is noted for the warmer climate around that period in time, particularly in the northern hemisphere.



Check your source, the depths of the Little Ice Age was within the last 300 years so there has not been a constant warming. Also, the 1930's were quite warm - warmer than the 1950's to the 1970's. You can find articles from that time where some scientists were worrying about a return to an ice age during that time period. The Second World War and the immediate post-war industrial era were periods of time where CO2 output increased significantly, but the averaged global temperature cooled slightly. Only in the late 1970's/early 1980's did that change.

1. You were noting how the time before the little ice age was far warmer than the end of it. I was noting that this is because the medieval warm period basically merged into the little ice age.

And the only reason the climate cooled was because of aerosols and particles. During the 70s and 80s, people started really acting against things like smoke and smog which came from factories and power plants. When they started putting scrubbers on smokestacks, banning aerosols and such, cooling reflective particles in the air diminished hugely and the earth began to warm again. I believe that's the currently accepted explanation for it at least.

And incidentally, the climate is actually the warmest it's ever been. Even during the Holocene Maximum, global temperatures were lower than they are today. And while that took hundreds of years to get to, current warming has only occurred for 50 years.

Anyway, this thread is supposed to be about 9/11, no?

It would seem that way.

 

[gristle]

Science textbook?

I'm quite sure that even a science textbook would cite the source of such a conclusive number. Could you please find the text and see if there is such a survey associated with the number? More than anything, I'm curious about taking a look at such a survey.

That's why I said basically. There are some who have merit, but not many.

Actually, you said:

The people that say "the matter isn't settled" are basically either fringe/pseudo-scientists, or anti-global warming propaganda from oil companies and such.

Scientists like Dyson are hardly fringe. Oddly enough, the part about everyone being on the take from oil companies sounds a tad conspiratorial, and I'm sure you already know what I think about unproven conspiracy claims.

1. You were noting how the time before the little ice age was far warmer than the end of it. I was noting that this is because the medieval warm period basically merged into the little ice age.

I'm not sure what you mean by "merged" into the Little Ice Age. Of course there is no discontinuity - other than global temperatures started to cool about nine hundred years ago. About a thousand years before the height of the Medieval Warm Period there was the Roman Warm Period, so it would appear that there is some natural cycles at work. What is essential then is for evidence that can clearly delineate any contemporary human-caused temperature change from natural variations. That doesn't automatically result in a refutation of anthropogenic global warming; what it does indicate is that there is still a need for more evidence and clarification regarding that hypothesis.

And the only reason the climate cooled was because of aerosols and particles. During the 70s and 80s, people started really acting against things like smoke and smog which came from factories and power plants. When they started putting scrubbers on smokestacks, banning aerosols and such, cooling reflective particles in the air diminished hugely and the earth began to warm again. I believe that's the currently accepted explanation for it at least.

Yes. I've read that as well - and it is interesting. However, while that may be so of the northern hemisphere, it hasn't been shown to be so with respect to the southern hemisphere. Even today, while there are variations in the Arctic ice cover, the Antarctic ice cover is presently quite stable and with very large sea ice extents in evidence.

And incidentally, the climate is actually the warmest it's ever been. Even during the Holocene Maximum, global temperatures were lower than they are today. And while that took hundreds of years to get to, current warming has only occurred for 50 years.

You are going to have to qualify that statement. Over the last four billion years, this is one of the coolest global eras. For a majority of the history of the planet, there has been no sea ice. There has been a cooling trend for thirty million years, and the planet has been in an "ice age" for millions of years. From the perspective of many geologists, we are still in the ice age - regardless of what the temperatures are now. There have been warm periods of ten to twenty thousand years interspersed over 80,000 year periods of much colder temperatures. Even the Holocene - the present warm period - has had warmer periods than present. The Holocene Climate Maximum was much warmer. There is a wealth of data on all these things.

Again, let me stress, none of that automatically undermines the concept of a contemporary human impact on the environment. What it does strongly suggest is that there is a need for more evidence regarding AGW, and a much better understanding of all the natural climate processes that are constantly at work.

This should possibly be a new thread.

 

[GenerationW]

Also, the 1930's were quite warm - warmer than the 1950's to the 1970's. You can find articles from that time where some scientists were worrying about a return to an ice age during that time period.?

In the 70's, that issue made the cover of Time and Newsweek, and the scientific journals of the day. One could say that 99.9% of scientists back then agreed the Earth was cooling (SOURCE: I made it up).

 

[Second_in_pie]

I'm quite sure that even a science textbook would cite the source of such a conclusive number. Could you please find the text and see if there is such a survey associated with the number? More than anything, I'm curious about taking a look at such a survey.

Unfortunately, I read that textbook a while ago. But, if you'd like some surveys, a quick peek on wikipedia will find a number of survey results. Now that I read those, 97% may have been the correct number I was looking for, but either way it still shows an undeniable and overwhelming majority. here And a quick link from that page will lead us to a page specifically on the consensus amongst scientists, here. Interestingly, the second link also provides a poll showing how misinformed the public is on the consensus among scientists.

Scientists like Dyson are hardly fringe. Oddly enough, the part about everyone being on the take from oil companies sounds a tad conspiratorial, and I'm sure you already know what I think about unproven conspiracy claims.

Again, I said basically. There are some exceptions, and there will never be true complete consensus. But when over 90% of scientists believe that this is a human-caused issue, it becomes clear that there is a general scientific belief.

And also, it's true that a huge amount of climate change denial comes from people employed by the petroleum industry and other kinds of people with stakes in the consensus among global warming. Not necessarily propaganda, that may (may) be a stretching of logic, but it does cause one to wonder what kind of biases may exist in those against the idea. And you might call it itself a biased work, but in Our Choice by Al Gore, I believe he actually explains how some scientists working for petroleum companies are actually told that they need to get evidence that there is no anthropogenic global warming, or risk being out of their jobs.

Yes. I've read that as well - and it is interesting. However, while that may be so of the northern hemisphere, it hasn't been shown to be so with respect to the southern hemisphere. Even today, while there are variations in the Arctic ice cover, the Antarctic ice cover is presently quite stable and with very large sea ice extents in evidence.

In most climate models for the future in a global warming scenario, Antarctica is actually experiencing considerably less heating than the rest of the earth. I'm not an expert, but I do believe that this is because of the influence of the Southern Ocean and it's relative isolation from the rest of the global ocean in terms of warm water currents. There is also the fact that there is currently a very thick ice sheet on top of Antarctica which covers a huge amount of land, reflecting lots of solar radiation while the arctic has a much bigger freeze/melt cycle which gives far more ground and ocean to absorb sunlight.
Though Antarctic ice isn't exactly "stable." The disaster of the Larsen B ice shelf is proof enough of that, and glaciers in Antarctica are almost universally diminishing at a faster pace than before.

You are going to have to qualify that statement. Over the last four billion years, this is one of the coolest global eras. For a majority of the history of the planet, there has been no sea ice. There has been a cooling trend for thirty million years, and the planet has been in an "ice age" for millions of years. From the perspective of many geologists, we are still in the ice age - regardless of what the temperatures are now. There have been warm periods of ten to twenty thousand years interspersed over 80,000 year periods of much colder temperatures. Even the Holocene - the present warm period - has had warmer periods than present. The Holocene Climate Maximum was much warmer. There is a wealth of data on all these things.

Again, let me stress, none of that automatically undermines the concept of a contemporary human impact on the environment. What it does strongly suggest is that there is a need for more evidence regarding AGW, and a much better understanding of all the natural climate processes that are constantly at work.

This should possibly be a new thread.

In the entire history of the earth, counting this entire glacial period that we've been in for the past several million years, then yes. But as a trend among the relatively stable climate of glacial maximums and minimums we've been having, it's a huge change, and it's quite surprising and should be seen as a big danger when millions of years of stability is broken down back to temperatures that are reminiscent of megafauna that existed hundreds of millions of years ago.

But this all makes sense; (very) historical amounts of GHGs in the atmosphere is probably one of the things that contributed to the high temperatures before the rise of mammals, which was gradually locked away into underground deposits of fossil fuels. Then humans come along and unlock those deposits back into the atmosphere, and it makes sense that the Earth regains the capacity to heat itself that much.

Perhaps there does need to be more evidence in support of AGW, if only to absolutely convince scientists and members of the public that global warming is mainly due to human practices and therefore a preventable thing. But already, there're mounds of data showing correlations between human activity and Global Warming and rising GHG trends. I'm always quite disappointed when people decide that we need more information to be sure before we act on anything. This may not (and probably doesn't) apply for you in particular gristle, but I feel the need to put it out here. It's quite obvious to see that human activity is destroying the planet in other ways. Rampant species loss and deforestation, unchecked resource exploitation, the affect of cities and farmland on regional ecosystems and nature, the effect of oil spills and human garbage and sewage. There are dozens of other reasons for us to stop affecting nature in the way we do, and that's all enough to see that we need to change the direction we're moving in, which is towards the same protocols and future that tacking global warming would take us.

And I think there was already a thread on this
Ah well, HOW BOUT 9/11? Kamuix, I'd like to see your response to my points on the last page.

 

[gristle]

Unfortunately, I read that textbook a while ago.

Again, I said basically. There are some exceptions, and there will never be true complete consensus. But when over 90% of scientists believe that this is a human-caused issue, it becomes clear that there is a general scientific belief.

Fair enough. My point is that sceptics in science need not be unfairly characterized as pseudoscientists. There are many who refer to themselves as AGW "agnostics" - they understand the hypothesis but want to see more evidence. The concern is that such derogatory descriptives silence valuable debate that is essential to clarification. That being said, thanks for the links.

In most climate models for the future in a global warming scenario, Antarctica is actually experiencing considerably less heating than the rest of the earth. I'm not an expert, but I do believe that this is because of the influence of the Southern Ocean and it's relative isolation from the rest of the global ocean in terms of warm water currents. There is also the fact that there is currently a very thick ice sheet on top of Antarctica which covers a huge amount of land, reflecting lots of solar radiation while the arctic has a much bigger freeze/melt cycle which gives far more ground and ocean to absorb sunlight.
Though Antarctic ice isn't exactly "stable." The disaster of the Larsen B ice shelf is proof enough of that, and glaciers in Antarctica are almost universally diminishing at a faster pace than before.

Regarding the Larsen B ice shelf, it's important to note that complex sediment and petrographic studies indicate that this shelf reformed during the Little Ice Age period. There is a large body of data that indicates the greatest extent of the Larsen ice shelves during the Holocene likely occurred only a few hundred years ago, and that the portions of that have shown some disintegration likely were created during the LIA. Additionally, it would appear that about 2,000 years ago, both the Larsen A and B ice shelves were almost completely absent, and that Antarctic temperatures of that time were likely much warmer than today.

Pudsey, C.J., et al. 2006. Ice shelf history from petrographic and foraminiferal evidence, Northeast Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 2357-2379.

Hemer, M.A., Harris, P.T. 2003. Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat. Geology 31: 127-130.

In the entire history of the earth, counting this entire glacial period that we've been in for the past several million years, then yes. But as a trend among the relatively stable climate of glacial maximums and minimums we've been having, it's a huge change, and it's quite surprising and should be seen as a big danger when millions of years of stability is broken down back to temperatures that are reminiscent of megafauna that existed hundreds of millions of years ago.

Against the larger backdrop of the entire glacial period history, an interglacial period may appear to be stable, but over the million year duration of the ice age, the warmer interglacial events can, themselves, be viewed as recurring perturbations within a much colder climate history. With respect to the Holocene, there have been many climatic variations over the course of the last 10,000 years - many of which have greatly exceeded the variations that have occurred over the past 150 years. Virtually all of these significant climatic changes occurred long before the development of modern civilization and are the result of natural events. Based on this history, it should be expected that there will be more erratic climatic behavior in the future that is not caused by human beings.

Overpeck, J., Webb, R. 2000. Nonglacial rapid climate events: Past and future. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97: 1335-1338.

Again, more research is necessary in order to clearly delineate the scale or degree of a human impact on climate from natural variations that are ongoing.

Perhaps there does need to be more evidence in support of AGW, if only to absolutely convince scientists and members of the public that global warming is mainly due to human practices and therefore a preventable thing.

With respect to more research, no disagreement here. At the same time, there must be an effort to take a very clear look at the very strong potential for natural causes, or a combination of both human and natural activities. Climate variation over time is a well established fact. What needs to be better understood is the past 150 years within that context. Again, that is not a refutation of AGW.

But already, there're mounds of data showing correlations between human activity and Global Warming and rising GHG trends. I'm always quite disappointed when people decide that we need more information to be sure before we act on anything.

As noted, more research gets the benefit of either better understanding the degree of a human impact (and personally I think the question for exploration is the degree of impact: small or large. The position of "no impact at all" is likely incorrect). It is very necessary to acquire a better comprehension the complex workings of the natural global climate system in order for any such measure of degree to be understood. There is good evidence to suggest that there are natural climate forcings in play as well.

Regarding action, given the ever greater demand for oil in both the developing and developed nations, and the increasing economic, environmental and political costs associated with recovery, exploration and future deep sea drilling for new sources, there is already a good reason for looking at alternatives. Even if the AGW hypothesis was refuted tomorrow, these things wouldn't change.

Ah well, HOW BOUT 9/11? Kamuix, I'd like to see your response to my points on the last page.

You know what Kamuix would say: narrow minded, brainwashed dupes of the whomever and whatever.

 

[Kamuix]

http://www.youtube.com/user/thealexjoneschannel?blend=1&ob=4

Ah well, HOW BOUT 9/11? Kamuix, I'd like to see your response to my points on the last page.

I'll get to them in a moment.

You know what Kamuix would say: narrow minded, brainwashed dupes of the whomever and whatever.

Bingo. Let's not forget that you won't discuss anything that I just discussed about the way you generalize and manipulated my posts, and neither will anyone else like Pie... I'll give a response to Pie's posts and he should do the same for me, why not? don't give me that 'off topic' result of a narrow minded nonsense... who cares if it's not the original topic it's my thread and I can just as easily change the topic if it's that important to you. Even though we both know why you keep bringing that excuse up anyway...

And don't pull a Grissie and quote what I say to make it look like it but then not address my points..

EDIT: Never mind I didn't post this thread but it should have been me.

 

[Kamuix]

1. Because they fully denied it.

2. Because we've had hundreds of experts in the fields of politics, engineering, and aviation that said everything pointed to a plane hijacked by terrorists crashing into the WTC and Pentagon, bringing down the twin towers and WTC 7.

3. Because terrorists have claimed the attacks as their doing

4. Because the US government has little good reason to have committed the attack, who's planning naturally would have had to occurred long before George Bush swept the political stage with his nationalist and aggressive foreign policies.

5. Because not a single person has come forward and given us hard firsthand evidence that it was actually an inside job. And all that exists is speculation and a very fringe group of scientists that are mostly being led by their own ideas before their science, very similar to Global Warming sceptics.

6. The economics don't work. Any idiot could see that a very expensive and hushed up operation on top of what's now trillions of dollars out of operation within Afghanistan and Iraq vastly outweighs any benefits that could come out of it. You say they wanted oil? Afghanistan has negligible oil reserves, while the invasion of Iraq has brought little new oil into US pockets, surely not over a trillion dollar's worth. So the only explanation is that hundreds of organizing bureaucrats are just evil, willing to murder their own people for at most trivial gains at the least absolutely no logical gain whatsoever.
You may be tempted to bring up Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, but that comparison would be false. In both cases, the public knew fully well who was behind the abductions and displacement and murders, the leaders of whom paraded out in full colours:
In the Nazi mindset, Jews, Roma, homosexuals and disabled people were not fit to live on the earth and had to be purged from society.
In Soviet Russia, the starvation of millions was a necessary evil to keep the country's economy moving strong.
In the US, the outright murder of 3000 random US citizens was essential in... well nothing really. They got some extra international wiggle room that has given them no new standing on the international stage (less, even,) has brought some important sectors of their economy, notably Airlines, to far higher levels of inefficiency, and lost them trillions of dollars in wars they were catapulted into after the attacks.

I'd go on, but I'd think that's enough.

1. You automatically believe them without question why? The establishment has never lied to you?

2. That's a bit of a generalization to base your beliefs off of isn't it? Governments are powerful and can pay off or make anyone look like professionals. Why not look at the other side of the story with an open mind first? you're going off what we've all been told from the beginning.

3. Terrorists that work or have worked for the CIA who are not supposed to be operational inside the USA yet are? Have you taken a glance at the credibility of who you're believing? Put aside the fact that it's our controllers first.

4. How is this is any form true? They have every reason to do it, you know how tyrannical governments work with brainwashing. How else could they convince the country that they need to take our freedoms away to protect us? Raise taxes?

5. Tons of people that were at the world trade center when it happened have come forward about things they witnessed that were denied to have happened and these people were also excluded from the 9/11 report. What is hard evidence to you anyway? How brainwashed can you get..

6. Again they're are tons of things to gain of the globalists to commit these crimes, especially in what it is they want to do like create a world government and world constitutions, raise taxes, destroy the middle class etc.. It's tyranny. It's happened in history too many times to think people this bad and this evil don't exist. In your mind bad and evil may just be a rapist or a pedafile. but even they are dwarfed my politicians. you don't think you know how bad and corrupt these people can get.

Just open your mind to the possibility everything you're feeding me is what the government has been feeding us. But why so much trust in the government? Governments need to be held to what they should be doing. In a conditioned society people are just to brainwashed to see this..

I'm sorry but you have to take a look at the other side of the story.. And i don't mean reading a few things and in your head not being able to wait to demolish they're arguments because sub-consciously you don't want to give it a chance.

I also think you may underestimate the power of your sub-conscious mind. Please just think for a moment about it.. You can't just believe everything the establishment says without question especially in a society and economy that's falling as much as ours is

 

[PinkLucy]

5. Tons of people that were at the world trade center when it happened have come forward about things they witnessed that were denied to have happened and these people were also excluded from the 9/11 report. What is hard evidence to you anyway? How brainwashed can you get..

Define "tons". Ten, a hundred, a thousand? Where is their testimony?

I'm sorry but you have to take a look at the other side of the story.. And i don't mean reading a few things and in your head not being able to wait to demolish they're arguments because sub-consciously you don't want to give it a chance.

Can you at least admit that sub-consciously or quite consciously you don't want to give a chance to those who say "it happened the way we saw it"?

 

[gristle]

Let's not forget that you won't discuss anything that I just discussed about the way you generalize and manipulated my posts...

How can I be generalizing when I was asking your for something specific: evidence to support your assertion. I note that you have still failed to provide any.

who cares if it's not the original topic it's my thread and I can just as easily change the topic if it's that important to you.

I read this and I imagine you saying it in a whiny voice of a child having a temper tantrum.

EDIT: Never mind I didn't post this thread but it should have been me.

Never quite sure about anything, are you Katmix.

Now, how about providing the evidence that will validate your claims regarding a government conspiracy. The challenge still stands. Do that or admit that you have none.

 

[Kamuix]

Lucy: hundreds or at least one hundred that I know of. example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8MhnaTvgUY Yea it's youtube but the audio recordings are real so that's what I find important anyway.

I love the second question you asked because yes i have and originally that's what I believed like the rest of us. The thing is every time I tried to consider that I had been told was right it seems there's no real in depth argument from the representatives of the argument that Conspiracy theorists are crazy and misinformed. but it's more.. the government acts as guilty as possible is every given situation as if they have something to hide, not to mention they've been caught doing illegal illegitimate things over and over. Beyond the illusions created that Conspiracy Theorists are absolutely crazy once I look at it in more depth and with an open mind it becomes clear to me what's really going on. You also in my opinion have to look at it in a wide spectrum too and not just looking at the very specifics and deny each one on a different perspective if you know what I mean.

Grissie: I explained how but you refuse to discuss my analysis for some reason. I mean if I'm crazy why not explain in depth how it's flawed?

I wasn't angry when I posted so i wasn't in any sort angry state and I was just explain why I thought it was stupid that you would use those... excuses to avoid simple discussions!

Grissie I'll say it again! The system won't allow anything to be considered evidence since that would further discredit their side of the story. If something comes out against the official 9/11 it immediately gets attacked and criticized on so many levels that's why you guys think that there's no hard evidence against anything I'm talking about.

make sense?

EDIT: Sorry if i come off as whiny, irritating or a Mr. know it all I wouldn't argue this way in person and I'm lazy when it comes to posting in a sophisticated well mannered mature way half the time..

 

[Second_in_pie]

1. You automatically believe them without question why? The establishment has never lied to you?

I don't believe in elaborate thousand man conspiracies for the sake of being evil. If the US made huge sums of money or used the patriot act to invade China or something, then maybe there's a possibility it was all some grand plan.

2. That's a bit of a generalization to base your beliefs off of isn't it? Governments are powerful and can pay off or make anyone look like professionals. Why not look at the other side of the story with an open mind first? you're going off what we've all been told from the beginning.

So the government's going to pay off hundreds of experts? And the people that we'd expect to all be the morally incorruptible folk who are blaming 9/11 on the government, I'd assume they're supposed to make sense, right? But no, most of the arguments are "the government is evil, no motivation needed, HURR." And don't you think that if one of these morally incorruptible folk did get a bribe from the US government, there'd be conspiracy theorists jumping about waving the evidence, or at least allegations? No. There's barely any experts, and absolutely no evidence of bribery or other forms of coercion.

3. Terrorists that work or have worked for the CIA who are not supposed to be operational inside the USA yet are? Have you taken a glance at the credibility of who you're believing? Put aside the fact that it's our controllers first.

I don't quite understand this. You're suggesting that Al-Quaida is an elaborate arm of the US government for the sake of being able to commit an attack on their own people with absolutely no motivation? There's absolutely no evidence to back that up, on top of the total improbability of it being true.

14. How is this is any form true? They have every reason to do it, you know how tyrannical governments work with brainwashing. How else could they convince the country that they need to take our freedoms away to protect us? Raise taxes?

Protip: Tyrannical governments are tyrannical because they have a goal. People aren't evil just because it's cool. Maybe they have an ideology aka Nazism or Stalinism, or maybe it's just to get money and a leisurely lifestyle aka 90% of all non-democratic governments in the history of the world. Neither of those could apply to the US government in the wake of 9/11. You haven't even suggested an ideology that this alleged secret organization behind the attacks would have held, let alone provided evidence or characterized it.
And government officials certainly haven't gotten more relaxed lives out of the attacks.

5. Tons of people that were at the world trade center when it happened have come forward about things they witnessed that were denied to have happened and these people were also excluded from the 9/11 report. What is hard evidence to you anyway? How brainwashed can you get..

... like? "I saw a guy in an orange shirt fall from the 40th story! What, how can that not be significant to the attack?! IT'S A CONSPIRACY, THE GUY IN THE ORANGE SHIRT WAS OBVIOUSLY DETONATING EXPLOSIVES AND JUMPED OUT BUT FORGOT TO RELEASE HIS PARACHUTE!"

6. Again they're are tons of things to gain of the globalists to commit these crimes, especially in what it is they want to do like create a world government and world constitutions, raise taxes, destroy the middle class etc.. It's tyranny. It's happened in history too many times to think people this bad and this evil don't exist. In your mind bad and evil may just be a rapist or a pedafile. but even they are dwarfed my politicians. you don't think you know how bad and corrupt these people can get.

Just open your mind to the possibility everything you're feeding me is what the government has been feeding us. But why so much trust in the government? Governments need to be held to what they should be doing. In a conditioned society people are just to brainwashed to see this..

I'm sorry but you have to take a look at the other side of the story.. And i don't mean reading a few things and in your head not being able to wait to demolish they're arguments because sub-consciously you don't want to give it a chance.

I also think you may underestimate the power of your sub-conscious mind. Please just think for a moment about it.. You can't just believe everything the establishment says without question especially in a society and economy that's falling as much as ours is

9/11 has in no way brought the world together. Actions after it not only destroyed American relations with half the world, but with half of it's own people. It's escalated tensions between the West and the Middle East.
Also, the government in charge during the 9/11 attacks made quite a large point of not raising taxes and instead opted for a more lassez-faire government. And if you're suggesting that increased military spending would be used to bump up taxes in the future, I'd like to point out that it's all going for nothing because that money's being wasted on the military, assumedly instead of paying for propaganda and corrupting the dozen or so officials not yet in on this conspiracy. And, I'd like to note that current leaders are already proposing to make the military smaller, meaning the issue stands completely alone.

 

[gristle]

Grissie: I explained how but you refuse to discuss my analysis for some reason. I mean if I'm crazy why not explain in depth how it's flawed?

You have not explained anything, and you've offered no evidence. Bland and unsupported generalizations are not analysis.

Grissie I'll say it again! The system won't allow anything to be considered evidence since that would further discredit their side of the story. If something comes out against the official 9/11 it immediately gets attacked and criticized on so many levels...

What is this "system" you refer to? The point is that no defensible evidence has come forward from conspiracy believers. Raising aimless questions or trying to amplify minutiae into mountains does not automatically mean there is a conspiracy, or that someone is preventing evidence from being recognized as evidence. If someone comes out against what you refer to as the "official" 9/11 account, but continues to fail in offering a version of events that can be validated, and offers no verifiable evidence to support their claim, then there is no refutation of the official account.

that's why you guys think that there's no hard evidence against anything I'm talking about.

You have no hard evidence - nor any soft evidence either for that matter. Ultimately, what emerges from the conspiracy world are streams of accusatory questions, an absence of evidence and a wide range of conflicting claims. There is no conspiracy "theory" to speak of. There is nothing there but a morass of sloppy thinking and paranoia-driven narrow-mindedness.